Opinion
Case No.: 1:16-cv-00487-SAB
03-26-2018
ERNESTO PASILLAS, Plaintiff, v. C/O SOTO, Defendant.
ORDER REQUIRING PLAINTIFF TO FILE OPPOSITION OR STATEMENT OF NON-OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (ECF No. 21)
THIRTY (30) DAY DEADLINE
Plaintiff Ernesto Pasillas is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. This case proceeds on Plaintiff's claim against Defendant Soto for the failure to intervene while Plaintiff was assaulted by another inmate, in violation of the Eighth Amendment.
On February 23, 2018, Defendant Soto filed a motion for summary judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56 on the grounds that she is entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff's claim. (ECF No. 21) Plaintiff was provided with notice of the requirements for opposing a motion for summary judgment. Woods v. Carey, 684 F.3d 934 (9th Cir. 2012); Rand v. Rowland, 154 F.3d 952, 957 (9th Cir. 1988); Klingele v. Eikenberry, 849 F.2d 409, 411-12 (9th Cir. 1988). (ECF No. 21 at 1-2.)
Plaintiff's response was due within twenty-one (21) days of the date of service of Defendant's motion. That deadline has passed, but Plaintiff has not filed an opposition or statement of non-opposition to the motion.
Pursuant to Local Rule 230(1), Plaintiff is HEREBY ORDERED to file an opposition or a statement of non-opposition to Defendant's motion within thirty (30) days. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: March 26 , 2018
/s/_________
UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE